COM/CXW/mnt * ALTERNATE DRAFT Agenda ID. #1461

(Alternate to Agenda ID #93)

Ratesetting

H-1a 12/17/02

Decision ALTERNATE DRAFT DECISION OF COMMISSIONER WOOD

(Mailed 11/25/02)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Joint Application of GTE Corporation ("GTE") and Bell Atlantic Corporation ("Bell Atlantic") to Transfer Control of GTE's California Utility Subsidiaries to Bell Atlantic, Which Will Occur Indirectly as a Result of GTE's Merger With Bell Atlantic.

Application 98-12-005 (Filed December 2, 1998)

OPINION MODIFYING DECISION 01-09-045

TO INCLUDE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

OPINION MODIFYING DECISION 01-09-045 1

TO INCLUDE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

1. Background 2

2. Procedural Matters 3

3. Requirements for Awards of Compensation 3

4. NOI to Claim Compensation 5

5. Substantial Contribution to Resolution of Issues 6

6. Application of Section 1801.3 to Create a "Duplication Reduction" 9

7. Comments on Alternate Draft Decision 19

8. The Commission received comments on the duplication reduction or Reasonableness of Requested Compensation 23

8.1 Overall Benefits of Participation 26

8.2 Hours Claimed 27

8.3 Hourly Rates 31

8.4 Other Costs 34

8.5 Award 37

9. Comments on Both Draft Decisions 39

Assignment of Proceeding 43

Findings of Fact 44

Conclusions of Law 46

ORDER 47

Today's decision modifies, Decision (D.) 01-09-045, in which we resolved pending requests for awards of intervenor compensation filed by The Utility Reform Network (TURN), The Greenlining Institute (GL), Latino Issues Forum (LIF)¹, and Public Advocates, Inc. (PA) for substantial contributions to D.00-03-021. We awarded TURN $146,113.66; we awarded GL/LIF $159,414.76; and we awarded PA $167,844.20. In this revised decision we award GL/LIF $268,108.93 and we award PA $279,140.33. Through inadvertence, we failed to include in D.01-09-045 our response to the comments we received on the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Draft Decision on these requests. We have concluded that the application of a duplication penalty to reduce awards to participants that make a substantial contribution is not permissible under the statutes governing compensation of participating customers in commission proceedings. Our reasoning is laid out in a revised Section 6. D.02-05-011 directed that the hourly rates adopted in D.01-09-045 be modified as appropriate to utilize the hourly rates adopted in D.02-05-011 for 1998, and later years. What follows is D.01-09-045 modified by a revision of Section 6, the addition of Section 8 ("Comments on Draft Decision") and by use of revised hourly rates. There is no change to the amount of the award or the reasoning supporting it for TURN.

1. Background

In this proceeding we reviewed the joint application of GTE Corporation (GTE) and Bell Atlantic Corporation (Bell Atlantic)² for approval to transfer GTE's California utility subsidiaries to Bell Atlantic, as a result of the merger of GTE with Bell Atlantic. In D.00-03-021 we approved the application with limited conditions and clarifications. The conditions and clarifications relate to the total amount of benefits allocated to ratepayers, distribution of those benefits, the funding of the Community Collaborative Agreement (CCA), preparation of service quality monitoring reports, and sharing of state level accounting cost information. We adopted D.00-03-021 following 13 days of evidentiary hearings during which 146 exhibits were received, as well as opening and reply briefs, and comments on the proposed decision (PD) of the ALJ.

TURN, GL/LIF, and PA all filed timely Notices of Intent (NOI) to claim intervenor compensation. Following issuance of D.00-03-021, TURN, GL/LIF, and PA each filed a Request For Compensation (Request). GL/LIF filed a subsequent Errata to Request (Errata).

No opposition to TURN's Request was filed. However, Applicants filed a Joint Response (Joint Response) to the Requests of GL/LIF and PA. Applicants agree that the participation of these intervenors merits compensation, but they challenge the proposed hourly rates for attorney services. A Response to Request (Response) was filed by PA addressing the issue of duplication of effort between PA and GL/LIF. A Motion For Leave to Late-File Reply and Reply (Reply) were filed by GL/LIF, in which the issue of duplication of effort is addressed.